So, looks like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are planning to bypass the world's leading international institutions in order to set up a developing nation equivalent:

"There"s a shift in power from the traditional to the emerging world. There is a lot of geo-political concern about this shift in the western world."

"The BRICS nations, which have combined foreign-currency reserves of $4.4 trillion and account for 43 percent of the world"s population, are seeking greater sway in global finance to match their rising economic power. They have called for an overhaul of management of the World Bank and IMF, which were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944, and oppose the practice of their respective presidents being drawn from the U.S. and Europe."

"The U.S. has failed to ratify a 2010 agreement to give more sway to emerging markets at the IMF, while it secured Jim Yong Kim, an American, as head of the World Bank last year over candidates from Nigeria and Colombia."

I would also note that Jim Yong Kim follows a tradition of the US promoting Koreans (South Koreans specifically) to important positions. First, Ban Ki Moon in charge of the UN, now this guy in charge of the IMF. Korea is a very small nation, so to have two in charge of two of the world's most prominent international organizations demonstrates a preference, similar to how it is recognized (yet condemned for recognition) that there is a strong Israeli/Jewish presence (don't know what is proper phrasing, if there is proper phrasing) in American institutions.

Your thoughts on these matters?

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

So, looks like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are planning to bypass the world's leading international institutions in order to set up a developing nation equivalent:

"There"s a shift in power from the traditional to the emerging world. There is a lot of geo-political concern about this shift in the western world."

"The BRICS nations, which have combined foreign-currency reserves of $4.4 trillion and account for 43 percent of the world"s population, are seeking greater sway in global finance to match their rising economic power. They have called for an overhaul of management of the World Bank and IMF, which were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944, and oppose the practice of their respective presidents being drawn from the U.S. and Europe."

"The U.S. has failed to ratify a 2010 agreement to give more sway to emerging markets at the IMF, while it secured Jim Yong Kim, an American, as head of the World Bank last year over candidates from Nigeria and Colombia."

I would also note that Jim Yong Kim follows a tradition of the US promoting Koreans (South Koreans specifically) to important positions. First, Ban Ki Moon in charge of the UN, now this guy in charge of the IMF. Korea is a very small nation, so to have two in charge of two of the world's most prominent international organizations demonstrates a preference, similar to how it is recognized (yet condemned for recognition) that there is a strong Israeli/Jewish presence (don't know what is proper phrasing, if there is proper phrasing) in American institutions.

Your thoughts on these matters?

I actually agree with the development, in principle. IMF and WB have often forced certain nations to 'deregulate' unceremonously, leading to haphazard growth pattern in these respective countries, as opposed to the protectionist policies strong countries like US themself followed when they were in the developing phase. However, considering the large incentive to take out frivolous loans, there is a high probabiliy of bank runs not unlike those almost seen in Cyprus, of late. Plus, which geopolitical conflicts between India China and Russia, the arrangement might be too unstable. One will have to observe to know for sure. There is a high probability of China becoming another dominant biased power.

I just realised I could have framed the answer a lot better. Meh, I'm tired.

Anyway, lordknuckle,

Compared with the historical experience of mature and newly industrialized countries, trade policy in developing countries today appears to be unduly liberal. "a comparison of the historical experience of the three core Western European economies [Germany, France, United Kingdom] and the United States with the current situation in developing countries and LDCs, and three large developing economies [shows a number of things including]:

At the end of the 19th century when per capita income (measured in purchasing power parity) in the United States was at a similar level as that in developing countries today (that is, some $3.000 in 1990 dollars), its weighted average applied tariffs on manufactured imports was close to 50 per cent, compared to 8.1 per cent in developing countries and 13.6 per cent in LDCs today.

In 1950 when the United States was already an undisputed industrial hegemon with a per capita income of almost three times the per capita income of developing countries today, its average applied industrial tariff rate was higher not only than the average rate applied by developing countries but also by LDCs today. This is also true, to varying degrees, for Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

When the United States had the same levels of per capita income as Brazil or China today, its applied tariff rates were four times higher. When its per capita income was similar to India today (that is, around the mid 19th century), its average tariff was twice as high. Again, all Western European core economies had higher industrial protection than Brazil, China and India today when they had similar per capita income levels.

In fact, there is a downward bias in these protectionist tarrif numbers because the transportation cost and the information cost today is comparatively very low, when compared to the cost in 1950s. Thus, the tarrifs should technically be higher today in order to let the countries grow unhindered in their initial stages of development.

So, looks like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are planning to bypass the world's leading international institutions in order to set up a developing nation equivalent:

"There"s a shift in power from the traditional to the emerging world. There is a lot of geo-political concern about this shift in the western world."

"The BRICS nations, which have combined foreign-currency reserves of $4.4 trillion and account for 43 percent of the world"s population, are seeking greater sway in global finance to match their rising economic power. They have called for an overhaul of management of the World Bank and IMF, which were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944, and oppose the practice of their respective presidents being drawn from the U.S. and Europe."

"The U.S. has failed to ratify a 2010 agreement to give more sway to emerging markets at the IMF, while it secured Jim Yong Kim, an American, as head of the World Bank last year over candidates from Nigeria and Colombia."

I would also note that Jim Yong Kim follows a tradition of the US promoting Koreans (South Koreans specifically) to important positions. First, Ban Ki Moon in charge of the UN, now this guy in charge of the IMF. Korea is a very small nation, so to have two in charge of two of the world's most prominent international organizations demonstrates a preference, similar to how it is recognized (yet condemned for recognition) that there is a strong Israeli/Jewish presence (don't know what is proper phrasing, if there is proper phrasing) in American institutions.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/27/2013 3:41:13 PM, Cermank wrote:I just realised I could have framed the answer a lot better. Meh, I'm tired.

Anyway, lordknuckle,

Compared with the historical experience of mature and newly industrialized countries, trade policy in developing countries today appears to be unduly liberal. "a comparison of the historical experience of the three core Western European economies [Germany, France, United Kingdom] and the United States with the current situation in developing countries and LDCs, and three large developing economies [shows a number of things including]:

At the end of the 19th century when per capita income (measured in purchasing power parity) in the United States was at a similar level as that in developing countries today (that is, some $3.000 in 1990 dollars), its weighted average applied tariffs on manufactured imports was close to 50 per cent, compared to 8.1 per cent in developing countries and 13.6 per cent in LDCs today.

In 1950 when the United States was already an undisputed industrial hegemon with a per capita income of almost three times the per capita income of developing countries today, its average applied industrial tariff rate was higher not only than the average rate applied by developing countries but also by LDCs today. This is also true, to varying degrees, for Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

When the United States had the same levels of per capita income as Brazil or China today, its applied tariff rates were four times higher. When its per capita income was similar to India today (that is, around the mid 19th century), its average tariff was twice as high. Again, all Western European core economies had higher industrial protection than Brazil, China and India today when they had similar per capita income levels.

What are you quoting from, and what is an LDC?

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/27/2013 3:41:13 PM, Cermank wrote:I just realised I could have framed the answer a lot better. Meh, I'm tired.

Anyway, lordknuckle,

Compared with the historical experience of mature and newly industrialized countries, trade policy in developing countries today appears to be unduly liberal. "a comparison of the historical experience of the three core Western European economies [Germany, France, United Kingdom] and the United States with the current situation in developing countries and LDCs, and three large developing economies [shows a number of things including]:

At the end of the 19th century when per capita income (measured in purchasing power parity) in the United States was at a similar level as that in developing countries today (that is, some $3.000 in 1990 dollars), its weighted average applied tariffs on manufactured imports was close to 50 per cent, compared to 8.1 per cent in developing countries and 13.6 per cent in LDCs today.

In 1950 when the United States was already an undisputed industrial hegemon with a per capita income of almost three times the per capita income of developing countries today, its average applied industrial tariff rate was higher not only than the average rate applied by developing countries but also by LDCs today. This is also true, to varying degrees, for Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

When the United States had the same levels of per capita income as Brazil or China today, its applied tariff rates were four times higher. When its per capita income was similar to India today (that is, around the mid 19th century), its average tariff was twice as high. Again, all Western European core economies had higher industrial protection than Brazil, China and India today when they had similar per capita income levels.

What are you quoting from, and what is an LDC?

Least Developed Countries. And I'll get you the link in a sec. It was a UN report.

At 3/27/2013 3:41:13 PM, Cermank wrote:I just realised I could have framed the answer a lot better. Meh, I'm tired.

Anyway, lordknuckle,

Compared with the historical experience of mature and newly industrialized countries, trade policy in developing countries today appears to be unduly liberal. "a comparison of the historical experience of the three core Western European economies [Germany, France, United Kingdom] and the United States with the current situation in developing countries and LDCs, and three large developing economies [shows a number of things including]:

At the end of the 19th century when per capita income (measured in purchasing power parity) in the United States was at a similar level as that in developing countries today (that is, some $3.000 in 1990 dollars), its weighted average applied tariffs on manufactured imports was close to 50 per cent, compared to 8.1 per cent in developing countries and 13.6 per cent in LDCs today.

In 1950 when the United States was already an undisputed industrial hegemon with a per capita income of almost three times the per capita income of developing countries today, its average applied industrial tariff rate was higher not only than the average rate applied by developing countries but also by LDCs today. This is also true, to varying degrees, for Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

When the United States had the same levels of per capita income as Brazil or China today, its applied tariff rates were four times higher. When its per capita income was similar to India today (that is, around the mid 19th century), its average tariff was twice as high. Again, all Western European core economies had higher industrial protection than Brazil, China and India today when they had similar per capita income levels.

I know that there were protectionist policies. My point was more related to the fact that you seem to imply some kind of connection between these tariffs and development.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 3/27/2013 3:41:13 PM, Cermank wrote:I just realised I could have framed the answer a lot better. Meh, I'm tired.

Anyway, lordknuckle,

Compared with the historical experience of mature and newly industrialized countries, trade policy in developing countries today appears to be unduly liberal. "a comparison of the historical experience of the three core Western European economies [Germany, France, United Kingdom] and the United States with the current situation in developing countries and LDCs, and three large developing economies [shows a number of things including]:

At the end of the 19th century when per capita income (measured in purchasing power parity) in the United States was at a similar level as that in developing countries today (that is, some $3.000 in 1990 dollars), its weighted average applied tariffs on manufactured imports was close to 50 per cent, compared to 8.1 per cent in developing countries and 13.6 per cent in LDCs today.

In 1950 when the United States was already an undisputed industrial hegemon with a per capita income of almost three times the per capita income of developing countries today, its average applied industrial tariff rate was higher not only than the average rate applied by developing countries but also by LDCs today. This is also true, to varying degrees, for Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

When the United States had the same levels of per capita income as Brazil or China today, its applied tariff rates were four times higher. When its per capita income was similar to India today (that is, around the mid 19th century), its average tariff was twice as high. Again, all Western European core economies had higher industrial protection than Brazil, China and India today when they had similar per capita income levels.

I know that there were protectionist policies. My point was more related to the fact that you seem to imply some kind of connection between these tariffs and development.

There's some evidence to say that protectionism can work, especially for developing countries. The idea is that some industries and corporations need economics of scales and networking effects in order to develop, and protectionism policy can be create them.

At 3/27/2013 3:41:13 PM, Cermank wrote:I just realised I could have framed the answer a lot better. Meh, I'm tired.

Anyway, lordknuckle,

Compared with the historical experience of mature and newly industrialized countries, trade policy in developing countries today appears to be unduly liberal. "a comparison of the historical experience of the three core Western European economies [Germany, France, United Kingdom] and the United States with the current situation in developing countries and LDCs, and three large developing economies [shows a number of things including]:

At the end of the 19th century when per capita income (measured in purchasing power parity) in the United States was at a similar level as that in developing countries today (that is, some $3.000 in 1990 dollars), its weighted average applied tariffs on manufactured imports was close to 50 per cent, compared to 8.1 per cent in developing countries and 13.6 per cent in LDCs today.

In 1950 when the United States was already an undisputed industrial hegemon with a per capita income of almost three times the per capita income of developing countries today, its average applied industrial tariff rate was higher not only than the average rate applied by developing countries but also by LDCs today. This is also true, to varying degrees, for Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

When the United States had the same levels of per capita income as Brazil or China today, its applied tariff rates were four times higher. When its per capita income was similar to India today (that is, around the mid 19th century), its average tariff was twice as high. Again, all Western European core economies had higher industrial protection than Brazil, China and India today when they had similar per capita income levels.

I know that there were protectionist policies. My point was more related to the fact that you seem to imply some kind of connection between these tariffs and development.

There's some evidence to say that protectionism can work, especially for developing countries. The idea is that some industries and corporations need economics of scales and networking effects in order to develop, and protectionism policy can be create them.

At 3/27/2013 3:41:13 PM, Cermank wrote:I just realised I could have framed the answer a lot better. Meh, I'm tired.

Anyway, lordknuckle,

Compared with the historical experience of mature and newly industrialized countries, trade policy in developing countries today appears to be unduly liberal. "a comparison of the historical experience of the three core Western European economies [Germany, France, United Kingdom] and the United States with the current situation in developing countries and LDCs, and three large developing economies [shows a number of things including]:

At the end of the 19th century when per capita income (measured in purchasing power parity) in the United States was at a similar level as that in developing countries today (that is, some $3.000 in 1990 dollars), its weighted average applied tariffs on manufactured imports was close to 50 per cent, compared to 8.1 per cent in developing countries and 13.6 per cent in LDCs today.

In 1950 when the United States was already an undisputed industrial hegemon with a per capita income of almost three times the per capita income of developing countries today, its average applied industrial tariff rate was higher not only than the average rate applied by developing countries but also by LDCs today. This is also true, to varying degrees, for Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

When the United States had the same levels of per capita income as Brazil or China today, its applied tariff rates were four times higher. When its per capita income was similar to India today (that is, around the mid 19th century), its average tariff was twice as high. Again, all Western European core economies had higher industrial protection than Brazil, China and India today when they had similar per capita income levels.

I know that there were protectionist policies. My point was more related to the fact that you seem to imply some kind of connection between these tariffs and development.

There's some evidence to say that protectionism can work, especially for developing countries. The idea is that some industries and corporations need economics of scales and networking effects in order to develop, and protectionism policy can be create them.

I didn't find the arguments that good. Especially the infant industry one, because that was the thrust of the argument here. The author basically says, "People believed this, they were wrong, I am therefore right. People realise that now."

Comparative Advantage, like a lot of theories, is based on some assumptions. One of them is no mobility of capital resources. Considering that the presumption is decidedly overcome today, and there is almost no constraint to capital mobility, countries have the option of gaining absolute advantage in specific sectors. They can, in essence, choose their path of growth.

If you're interested, this article actually is a very good source on the specific assumptions of comparative advantage that do not apply today:

Your source rebuts protectionism for developed economies, but Cermank's point was that protectionism helps developing economies.

The conclusion, if both of you are correct, is that an awareness of the existence of mercantilist tendencies in international trade would help negotiators on both sides of a trade agreement.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I would also say that your article is not quite accurate in asserting that developing economies implementing import substitution have failed. China DOES make everything, and they are following the development model of Korea and Japan, which also did their best to produce everything they needed first before developing robust export economies. An example specific to China is that they were actually exporting oil as recent as 10-15 years ago.

What makes East Asia different from other developing economies is IMHO political. Japan and SK had full protection and access to US markets, thus insulating them from the ravages of geopolitics. This was simply not true of other developing markets, especially SE Asia. China also fits into this political explanation, as they are simply so big that they are more immune to the effects of international economic maladies.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

lol, so essentially we need to throw the classical textbook on free trade out the window.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?